On Land and at Sea
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

medal medal medal

Community Reputation

419 Good


About *AceArchangel

  • Rank
    Pilot officer
  • Birthday 05/28/1996

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    World War History
    I support the 0.7 BR spread,
    and big ships in Naval Forces

Recent Profile Visitors

1,351 profile views
  1. Tiger 131 wasn't combat operational when captured, and was never intended for service with the British military. Although it did provide a wealth of information on the tanks specs for the Western Allies. The Soviets captured their first Tiger in January 1943 and it was subjected to multiple tests but was never fielded. I have made a suggestion for the addition of this Tiger [100] for the German tree as it is quite unique located here.
  2. aircraft/loadouts

    Understandable, but hey thanks for the opening the suggestion! In my thoughts this would take an Arado sort of role fast but little to no offensive capability outside of bombs.
  3. There never was a V1 turret developed just a weighted box that was similar in weight and size to what the V2 turret was going to be. And yes everything aside from the gun shield/mantlet was 240mm of that WH - RHA.
  4. That's way over thinking things the Canadian leopard would not appear as the commonwealth tanks would be added to fill out the necessary areas of the current British tree while also adding new original designs like the Ram II, Skink, CF-100... plus hey we already have Australian tanks and planes and is Australia British? It is to fix the tree name to what it really should have been from the beginning. Will it add duplicate vehicles? Most likely no, end of story. The only one I could possibly see being a duplicate is the Canadair Sabre CL-13, and that is because it was a completely different aircraft right down to the engine, the C1 and C2 leopard won't happen as there is nothing special and unique about them from their German counterpart and I'll be damned if we ever even see a leopard 2 in War Thunder.
  5. tanks/vehicles

    I'm in as a gift tank like the E-100 and the supposed IS-7, as long as it gets the 8.0 BR, and question, does this model suggested have an autoloader? +1
  6. This truly is a beautiful list, now we just need someone inside of Gaijin to take the Maus' historical and balancing subject here seriously, not to say they aren't busy with many things but the Maus and E-100 are just currently under performing at their 7.7 BR, not that I want the BR changed either just want the Maus/E-100 to be as historically accurate as possible.
  7. I'm all in, I want the Canadian Ram II in the British/Commonwealth Research Tree!
  8. Tanks/Vehicles

    It's got my vote, personally I think it should sit in a sub tree of the 1944 at 6.7 with the recently removed post war BR471D I think it could make a nice addition to the tree, as long as it isn't a vehicle, necessary research to progress towards the IS-3.
  9. Hello everyone, Today I was browsing for interesting new fighters when I came across this Japanese built trainer, while not technically a fighter, the T-1A still was outfitted with offensive weaponry. The Fuji T-1A was designed and built by Fuji Heavy Industries of which stems from the prominent WWII fighter developer, Nakajima Aircraft Company. The T-1A was also the first indigenous jet fighter design since the closure of the Second World War, and was to serve as Japan's first jet fighter trainer. It took to the skies for the first time in January of 1958 and in the end a total of 66 T-1s of multiple variants were completed with 46 being of the T-1A variant. Aside from one minor hiccup (which I will get to) the overall specs are well within the capabilities for the game especially when compared to other jets in War Thunder. The T-1A was powered by one British made Mk 805 Bristol Siddeley Orpheus turbojet engine, which propelled the fighter at a maximum of 860 - 925 km/h, which is faster then the P-80 but not exactly an outstanding top speed by any means. It had a really nice climb rate of 33m/s. It's armament consisted of a provision for a single 12.7mm M53-2 (M2 Browning) mounted in the nose, although I cannot seem to find the exact ammunition count, it was also capable of carrying two 340 kg (750 lb) bombs, which could be swapped with two 455 L external drop tanks. As well as being capable of mounting two AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles of which this suggestion is to omit, there has been similar suggestions like the A-4 Skyhawk which was suggested without its missiles. And given there is such a limited selection of capable jet aircraft for the Japanese tree I thought that this would be more then able to make the cut, as everything aside from its missile armament (which wouldn't be represented in game) is within the technical limits of the game. I believe the Fuji T-1A would make for a great beginner multirole fighter for the Japanese fighter tree, in my opinion a 6.7 BR would fit perfectly, as it would fly faster and climb better then it's peers at its BR, whilst also being a good ground attacker with its bomb load out, although its petty offensive gun armament leaves something to be desired. In air to air conflicts it would most certainly be a very tough aircraft to master and would necessitate a disciplined play style, with its single 12.7 mm gun but its speed and bombload would make a great fast ground attacker for a 6.7 BR. Specifications (Cited as per Wikipedia - Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1965-66) General Crew: 2 Length: 12.12 m (39 ft 9 in) Wingspan: 10.50 m (34 ft 5 in) Height: 4.08 m (13 ft 5 in) Wing area: 22.22 m2 (239.2 sq ft) Aspect ratio: 4.96:1 Airfoil: K-561/K-569 Empty weight: 2,420 kg (5,335 lb) Gross weight: 4,150 kg (9,149 lb) clean Max takeoff weight: 5,000 kg (11,023 lb) (with external tanks) Fuel capacity: 1,400 L (308 Imp Gallons) Powerplant: 1 × Bristol Siddeley Orpheus Mk 805 turbojet, 18 kN (4,000 lbf) thrust Performance Maximum speed: 925 km/h (575 mph; 499 kn) at 6,100 m (20,000 ft) Cruise speed: 620 km/h (385 mph; 335 kn) at 9,150 m (30,000 ft) Range: 1,300 km (808 mi; 702 nmi) (internal fuel) Ferry range: 1,950 km (1,212 mi; 1,053 nmi) Service ceiling: 14,400 m (47,200 ft) [8] Rate of climb: 33 m/s (6,500 ft/min) Armament Guns: Provision for 1 × 12.7 mm Browning M53-2 machine gun in nose Hardpoints: 2 with provisions to carry combinations of: Missiles: 2 × AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles Bombs: 2 × 340 kg (750 lb) bombs Other: 2 × 455 L (100 Imp Gallon) drop tanks Again for clarity this suggestion is for the Fuji T-1A without air to air missile capability. Cheers! References
  10. american planes

    I am on board as long as other nations receive the same treatment currently Germany and Japan are left behind quite a bit (not much selection for Japan), personally if these are considered I would hope that Germany would get: F-84 Thunderstreak F-86K (with the four 20mm cannons) Hawker Sea Hawk (also for Britain) Fiat G.91 (four 12.7s or an optional loadout of two 30mm DEFA autocannons)
  11. Everything listed aside from the Maus vents also effects the E-100 and anything that buffs these two vehicles should not only be a priority but also a necessity as this information is historically accurate to the actual V1 Maus Chassis and V2 Turret, which are the only remains of the Maus in existence, and the earliest drawings and blueprints for the E-100 shows the developed chassis was to be mated with a Maus V2 turret. I am surprised that these documents have been snubbed aside for so long, all of these things have supporting primary documentation and physical evidence backing them up and still this has not been taken to heart... And after the last patch 1.67 most of all of the unofficial patch notes were revealed by a data miner, and listed in there they nerfed the Maus/E-100 to have a 100% (from 75%) chance of explosion when the 128mm rounds are destroyed and a 75% (from 50%) chance when the 75mm rounds are destroyed, and given the massive turret face weak spot due to the incorrect 220mm of its also incorrect cast armour you will more then likely always die from a frontal penetration... A very unnecessary nerf to an already under-performing/underwhelming tank. Fix the Maus and E-100, please! Sure the gun shield/mantlet maybe casted at 240mm (don't know how true that is) but the turret face definitely should not be Casted but rather that WH armour (harder then RHA), the current 220mm of cast has a true thickness of about 209mm of true thickness after the unrealistic .95% modifier... Also I would suggest renaming the topic to something along the lines of A Complete List Unhistorical Issues with Maus, not to be rude or anything it would just clarify the topic at hand. Currently it seems like a compilation of gameplay videos or something.
  12. Hey I also realized for your rendered model that there is a small cut away portion on the mantlet of Tiger I [100] that was present on every one of the first 100 Krupp turrets produced, it's even present on Tiger 131 see below, I added info about it on the main page.
  13. The Tiger I had two turrets designed for it, the Initial/Early variant and the revision that was made after being officially adopted. The first turret (designed by Krupp) was designed to fit on both the Henschel and Porsche chassis', after the Henschel chassis was chosen for production the remaining Krupp turrets were fitted. When It came time for mass production however changes were made and small things like the redesign of the turret mantlet, to remove a cut out in he bottom right of the mantlet that was to allow clearance over parts of the Porsche chassis which was unnecessary on the Henschel chassis. The turret was again later changed for the new production Tiger E variant, although some older Tigers underwent retrofitting to be of Tiger E standard while also retaining the original turret produced. One such vehicle is the only operational Tiger in existence Tiger 131. I made a suggestion for the addition of an Early Production Tiger I and/or Tiger I [100] as the differences between Initial/Early Tiger Is went much further then just the mantlet.
  14. Tanks/Vehicles

    Sure but I would rather see the historical 240mm of frontal turret armour without the incorrect cast modifier, first.
  15. This might fit better as a bug report to be honest.
  16. The STRV 81 was Swedish not British didn't stop it from being added and if i'm not mistaken you dislike the addition of prototypes so what else is there to add? British need to fill out their tree as they have a very small selection, and there isn't exactly enough true British vehicles to add in, same goes for top tier Germany. Plus the Vickers MBT was made by the British for export purposes do technically it is still British, which is similar in a way to the TAM as it was designed and developed through a German firm and proposed as the TH301 to the German military.
  17. maus

    Just thought I would put this here but I was reading the unofficial 1.67 patch notes that were found and somthing stuck out immediatly. and judging by how due to this issue of frontal turret thickness not being the correct 240mm Rolled Homogenous Armour and instead being 220mm of Cast Armour (with incorrect cast modifier), the Maus and by extension the E-100 has now been nerfed even further, as most penetrating shots are due to this turret weakspot that is historically incorrect and the majority destroy one of the turret ammo racks, and now there will be almost no chance of taking more then one frontal turret penetrating shot and now a further nerf to an already broken vehicle...
  18. Not at all, you can acheive the same result by editing your previously made comments and adding the quote of someone else. And from what I have seen these comments are very conveniently timed to be after someone elses topic hits top of the suggestions page.
  19. That is very dissapointing but I appreciate you asking, here's to hoping for the best.
  20. I apologise I actually realized after that it does in fact fire the APFSDS-T round along with Canister (but canister is not exactly War Thunder material)
  21. Personally best option is the addition of the FV101 Scorpion 90, very fast light tank similar 90mm gun likely better reload times, plus if that is put as a premium (as it is a foreign export variant) then the standard FV101 Scorpion with the 76mm gun. Types of ammunition for 90mm Cockerill cannon (on the FV101 Scorpion 90) TYPE HE-T HEAT-T HESH-T TP-T MASS Complete Round (Kg) 8.6 7.7 257 7.7 MASS Shell 5.2 4.2 4.3 4.2 LENGTH Complete Round (mm) 630 650 590 650 PROPELLING CHARGE Mass (Kg) 1.25 1.35 1.10 1.35 EXPLOSIVE CHARGE TNT TNT+RDX (Comp B) A3 - EXPLOSIVE CHARGE Mass (Kg) 1.06 0.54 1.23 - MUZZLE VELOCITY (m/s) 700 890 800 890 RANGE (m) 1600 2000 1200 1600 ACCURACY at 1000 m (mils) 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 TRACER (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 PACKING 3 rounds in wooden case volume 0.050 m3 mass 35 Kg Also according to this below, it also could fire APFSDS-T, can't find any stats on that though. The HEAT-T has about 300 m/s slower in muzzle velocity although it's mass is larger, the explosive mass is equivalent with 540g on the Scorpion and 544g on the RU-251. HESH on the Scorpion has a muzzle velocity of 800 compared to the RU-251s 853, the explosive charge is less on the Scorpion with 1.23 Kg compared to the RU at 2.12 Kg. Mass on the Scorpions HESH is 4.3 Kg compared to the RU at 11 Kg. No difinitive numbers for penetration on the Scorpion although I would imagine it to be similar, although the lighter ammunition should make the reload time better then the RU-251 for certain.
  22. Is that in regard to the Tri-Colour Camouflage and Soviet Hammer Title? And I understand it if you are not sure, but we should in all fairness get the same oppertunity aswell.
  23. Just thought I would put this here but I was reading the unofficial 1.67 patch notes that were found and somthing stuck out immediatly. and judging by how due to this issue of frontal turret thickness not being the correct 240mm Rolled Homogenous Armour and instead being 220mm of Cast Armour (with incorrect cast modifier), the Maus and by extension the E-100 has now been nerfed even further, as most penetrating shots are due to this turret weakspot that is historically incorrect and the majority destroy one of the turret ammo racks, and now there will be almost no chance of taking more then one frontal turret penetrating shot and now a further nerf an already broken vehicle...
  24. I'm sorry but this is just completely incorrect the game is fair and balanced for the most part. It is not random and there is nothing currently wrong with the current meta of the game. You may be having a bad string of games which leads to frustration but that isn't to do with the mechanics of the game. I suggest taking a break from the game if it gets you this frustrated and come back once you have cleared your head and calmed down a little. Also please don't disrespect the developers, they put a lot of hard work and effort to provide us with this game.
  25. It does happen after full review of the information given, face value it looks sleek and space like, statistically it can't hold a candle to even the Tiger II P at 6.3.
  26. 1.1.1. Insult any forum members or forum staff. 1.1.2. Start or participate in flame wars, intentionally derail a topic, or post useless spam messages in moderated areas. 1.1.26. Abusing the "Report Post" feature by sending false alarms or nonsensical messages That was unnessesary and Retry has a point almost everything about this vehicle is either unknown, unverified, or untrue, as is the nature with most paper vehicles. He wasn't insulting you, there has been quite a bit of unverified and unproven statements from you here thus 1.1.1 isn't an issue here. 1.1.2 also doesnt apply he isn't starting a flame war, derailing the topic or posting spam messeges. 1.1.26 also obviously does not apply. Plus bringing up the point of spam messeges isn't that what you are doing here posting nearly 4 -5 messeges consecutively commenting on every little thing, which in turn keeps your post at the top and front page of the suggestions list, which can be considered bumping to a degree, which is against the rules is it not?
  27. Thank you for the support KnightoftheAbyss and *PureGT_Muzz
  28. And yet still no word from anyone about it, it seems as though all the mods are keeping a tight lip for some reason. An explanation or at least some kind of word on what will happen would be great but haven't even been given that. You just found yourself a subscriber
  29. Solid Shot has been rediculously underpowered sure it can pen and knock out a crew member or mechanical part but it has a very hard time igniting fuel tanks and ammo and almost never knocks out a vehicle in one hit (bar those with cramped crew compartments and/or low crew numbers) unless damaged prior, something that most other nation's vehicles don't have to worry to much about. Wasted potential to only buff the Solid Shot on the 105mm guns while HESH was actually nerfed across all the vehicles.
  30. Quite an impressive 7 or so pages, and the debate was nice (ugly at times) but it got all the gears turning. Clarity and understanding after a long clouded clash of beliefs though is far better.
  31. I do want solid shot to be fixed I don't agree with the RU-251 being uptiered do to how it conflicts with just the British tanks, although I see your points on the British becoming more competitive and on that, we can agree.
  32. And had that been your argument from the start, or if that was your initial view from the start. I could have told you that it the Solid AP has been an issue that has plagued British tanks from the get go and has spawned debates already. This has been an issue at almost every tier and BR, the RU-251 did not cause that and if that is your argument then why does that not apply against the IS-6 at 7.0 it still fights solid shot tanks at a downtier with its APHE rounds does that make it unfair also? You can't base a vehicles BR around one nation and this has never been the case the Russians and most other nations have HEATFS and APHE at those BRs. I have stated that I do want the Solid Shot amended to be better competitive but a vehicle isn't OP even if it were just based on it's encounters with a single nation. The issue is you kept shifting the argument, it wasn't what you stated above and anyone that looks back can see that. I understand your concerns on the matter but it seems like these issues stem from Solid Shot being nerfed and matchmaking not working as fairly as it should. I know that there is a capability gap between 5.7 and 6.7 but moving the RU-251 is not going to fix that, decompressing the BRs will.
  33. I agree both are unique enough to fit in game and with the Porsche prototype Tiger I (the gift one) placed a 5.3 then I see no issues with the Early Tiger I being placed at 5.3 with its weaker engine. And of course the bread and butter the Tiger 100s story alone should be enough for a purchasable bundle (like the multiple P-51s with liveries of the pilots for the particular aircraft).
  34. There is no failure in logic I have far more vehicles in the 5.7 - 6.7 in the Russian tree alone then you do across all nations and have experience fighting the RU-251 and Germany in general and not once have I had issues dealing with the vehicle let alone my team actually winning, which happens actually fairly often. If you want to see failure in logic look at your argument you say that the RU-251 is unfair, unbalanced and over powered yet the win rate between conflicting nations in game at 6.7 and a 5.7 downtier are still fair and equally balanced, Germany isn't winning any more then the other nations are and the majority of players are doing poorly even while sitting at 6.7. How can it be unfair but not show it as such? Are people manipulating statistics? Is Thunderskill lying about its numbers? Are the multiple even number losses and wins on my battles logged in game lying to me? I never said your opinion was invalid that is you putting those words in my mouth I am relaying the truth through actual evidence not the word of a few people that help my case with personal happenings as proof. And you and the same few other people are sitting here doing the exact same, saying that it's just me invalidating points is just plain hypocritical. Tiger I is 5.7, I know that was a mistake on your part, and again that is a matchmaking issue not an issue with the RU-251 it has been effecting the game ever since they changed the BR spread from 0.7 to 1.0, don't paint the picture that the RU-251 is the sole contributer. Why is it whenever I strike a nerve you immediatly say that I am insulting you? You have far less game experience at any mid/high tier games then most of all the people here that are saying it is balanced, that isn't an insult it's fact. I said it was easy to kill with my experince yes with the STRV 81 but I also stated the T-29, most of all the 5.7 - 6.7 tanks in the Russian tree, but you are so enamoured with me mentioning the STRV that you jump the gun and use that as evidence enough. Again matchmaking not the RU-251 and has been a constant issue (again) since the implimentation of the 1.0 BR spread. Are you serious... I'm not even going to go there. Range is only as good as the guns accuracy which the RU-251 lacks and I have mentioned this but again you neglected to hear that. The Object 906 has 20 less penetration with a far more accurate gun thus a better effective range on a gun that reloads as fast as the T92 (with a 76mm gun) at ~7.6 seconds as opposed to the RU-251's almost 10 second reload. And again can float on water and reach parts of maps that other vehicles can't. You do the same I have been saying this over and over... And the only reason I used the term deaf/blind was because you routinely neglect key points of my argument that you have no way of countering, deciding to instead focus on a few things that you can work with and then being mute when ever I bring them back up. As much as I have yours and I am too lazy to go back through the 7 pages to pull every exact time up. Um but if it is based on real information in real games then that is fact, turning a blind eye (figure of speech) to facts and giving merit to the few people who say that they had an unbalanced match against the RU-251 without any evidence or proof to back up their statement is again another instance of you relying on confirmation bias to justify your argument. If someone is saying that a vehicle is over performing which is being stated here statistically it would show that yes it is a vehicle that is better then all of the rest at its tier, should the W/R and K/D of a vehicle in game influence a BR adjustment is an academic argument, but it can and should be used in regards to understanding whether a vehicle is overperforming. If it were OP it would take little amounts of skill to be good at playing that is not the case with the RU-251 and the statistics prove this.
  35. Sorry I forgot you were an expert at 5.7 - 6.7 battles with your two 5.7 tanks. And yes the opinion of a few that do not own the vehicle does not, will not and should not drown out those that actually own and play the vehicle. That's all you want to hear because you "invalidate" my evidence the minute it's brought up because it doesn't conform to your standard. What I have heard from you keeps changing first you said it was OP in general then you moved to it being just unfair in a downtiered match and now your argument is just based on it having the possibility to club at a down tier as I proved that it was clubbing at any tier. I am not the one floundering for an argument here. Many tanks perform excellent at a down tier that is what I was saying, but you say it like it's something brand new that it is good at 5.7 which certainly is not the case. It is fact and many people have told you so in this topic and in statistical evidence (which you invalidated but I will get to that). I play Russian tanks quite a bit and many of those aren't premiums and I still have no issues I mentioned this before but your confirmation bias made you overlook that didn't it. It is a give/take scenario here all of them are comparable, the T92 while not having the penetration value makes up for that with a far faster reload, better gun depression/elevation, a smaller silhouette, next to no turret for someone to penetrate. M56 is a different play style with its SPG type role. And Object 906 isn't comparable because it fight at an entirely different BR with a fast loading 85mm gun that can use floating on water as an advantage something we are seeing become more relevant with Gaijin changing the map layouts. I have done that but you sit here anyway and fight other people over theirs while bringing call backs to my argument and this isn't a two way street you can't tell me to to go down one while you go down another. Actually those statistics do count in this as you guys have pointed out on multiple occasions that this tank is over performing and that it is unfair we pulled up actual player statistics showing otherwise which shifted the argument yet again, but at the same time you try and invalidate it because what... it doesn't conform to your belief? Player stats has a huge role to play when ever a vehicle is shifted in BR (see Panther II, T-34-85, IS-2, and even the IS-3) in this case here the RU-251 does not perform very well and that is at a 6.7 BR so tell me how does moving it 7.0 make that statistical number get any better? I'll tell you it doesn't, Time4Tea has been oh so quick to say I'm the one to invalidate everything that doesn't fit with my argument but yet you fail to see that you do the same.
  36. You keep stretching your argument and grasping for straws I made many points and all fair and thought out and you ignored them (again). I proved I had experience and again that was ignored. This argument against the vehicle has seemling turned into just you trying not to be proven wrong, which is at the detriment of the reality of the topic at hand. Not the fault of the RU-251 and has no purpose in this regard. Overreaction and no that would be the opposite of what I would have suggested, but this is how you react every time by making these outlandish connections between unalike things that don't make sense with what is being discussed. Now you have changed your argument from it being OP in general, to just OP at the 5.7 downtier. That isn't anything new and is actually very common look at the Tiger II at 6.7 it absolutely seal clubs in a 5.7 downtier, same with my E-100 in a 6.7 down tier from time to time and by extension the Maus (can't speak for it with certainty as I don't own it). No, as stated it is the Type 62 at 6.7. Seemingly forgetting the existance of the T92 The Scorpion 90 would make for a great counter to the rest of those already at 6.7.
  37. And you weren't in your own way? You kept ensuring that my points were invalid because I purchased it and that I would want it to stay their because I paid money... I tell you that the majority of players have a negative K/D ratio with it and here you say that it doesn't matter because I can't apparently prove it with stats that exist. You ignore the people that saying that it an easy threat to deal with. I mention multiple other vehicles with similar stats and they are "invalid" because they aren't exactly the same as the RU-251? Like the Type-62 which doesn't count due to it not being exactly the same or that it isn't a true premium even though it still exists. You ignore the fact that it has many draw backs like a cramped crew compartment with only 4 crew members which makes killing it all the easier? You also Ignore the mentioning that the gun is inaccurate? For a comparison look at the Pz.II H it has a replica of the same gun that it on the Pz.III L/M 3.3 same penetration and everything and yet it sits at 2.3 with a fast top speed and paper thin armour, by your logic should it sit at a higher 3.3 BR because that is where it's gun and ammo penetration on other tanks sit? Your argument revolves around you dying in an uptiered game (which in and of itself puts you at a disadvantage anyway), how about I say that the Tiger H-1 is OP, its fast maneuverable (compared to similar heavies) and can pen anything at its tier? No tank is meant to be equal and the RU-251 is no exception to that rule. And I do have experience fighting it in my British STRV-81 and had success there even with my Firefly and ACIV Thunderbolt, 5.7 - 6.7 Russian line up and the American T-29 and the M18 Hellcat, none of them with much of any trouble. I have... if you forgot already I play the STRV-81 and the RU-251 when if at all seen is fair match, I can easily kill it when I get the first shot off and I am yet to be one hit killed when I have a full crew compliment. Also you haven't played the RU-251 as stated many times before and you don't know how hard it actually is to use, yet you think you have a say in where it's placement should be. Why can't you see that? That in and of itself is why I said it is a superfluous argument. HEATFS is not the issue here, the ammo which nearly identical to the Type-62, but you invalidated that as a comparison and aparently the T92 and the M56 also don't count as you say, so aparently we should just have AP and APCR and leave those other tanks because 'reasons' with that mindset, okay cool that's just great. Comparing the two of them doesn't even make sense and placing the Comet in that area isn't comparable to the RU-251 at all they are not at all similar. The comet actually has armour that is useful for certain situations at its BR, it has 5 crew members which makes it more resiliant to penetrations. And placing it against early Pz.III/IV's wouldn't be easy for them to deal with it would be essentially a heavy tank there as most of those tanks rely on stock rounds which would have trouble against it UFP let alone the turret. Not comparable at all, see my comparison to the Pz.II H as it shows that this non existant "issue" you have with the RU-251 isn't new and has existed for awhile. "So only someone who has paid real money for it, probably enjoys clubbing and might not be wanting it to be increased in BR can decide whether it should be in increased in BR or not?" - Your own words mate. And that was in defense of you having a say in the matter but you have barely any experience fighting it, all seemingly bad which is more likely to be a L2P issue rather then the vehicle being too "overly powerful" as you believe. You make it out to be some sort of god on the battlefield, yet if it were that great, the majority of players wouldn't have negative K/Ds, all they players that pick it up would be immediatly great and wouldn't need to be skilled to win nearly everytime. And obviously it would mean almost every match would be an absolute massacre on all those who oppose the German team of which is simply not happening.
  38. Personally I think 6.7 would be great for the two of them, the RU-251 has a turret but the JPz 4-5 has a faster reload speed in exchange. Both have similar armaments (different gun) but the RU-251 has worse accuracy in game from what I've heard and again the JPz 4-5 would have a more accurate gun to counter the rotating turret again. The JPz 4-5 makes no sense sitting after the Jagdtiger which is arguably better in many ways.
  39. This is why the 0.7 BR spread should be added to better keep players within their proper ranges and make the specs of vehicles much more closely matched.
  40. That is what I have been saying their argument consists of "players with the tank are biased and don't want it to be up tiered", and "I was killed that one time in one shot". And when ever any of us speak up and say that it isn't OP and give reasons like how it has only 4 crew members or how its ammo penetration is very comparable to other vehicles at its BR, and that it can be killed by literally a BT-5 with little effort, aparently that means nothing because I am biased and therefore the decision should be handed to people that don't have it and will never use it and whose only experience with it is a few times they were killed by it when they weren't watching their flank (like you know, the allies do to Germany all the time), also some people here complaining, don't even have one vehicle past BR 5.7 but think that they have a say in whether or not the RU-251 is OP or not (given their expert experience if fighting it in an uptiered match)... It really is a superfluous argument at that point because if the people who own it, play it and understand it don't have a say in what they think about it, then why should someone who doesn't have it, never played it and doesn't understand how it plays have any more say in the matter? And the majority of these people whining are relying on confirmation bias, ignoring all the facts that say it is balanced and focusing on the few times they see a German team win (which isn't anything out of the norm) and immediatly blaming the RU-251 as the reason they failed to win after seeing that someone in their game had gotten a kill in one... This is the same petty fight that ensues after every patch that adds a new higher tier vehicle German or otherwise, except this time these people seem to be a little more deaf to the truth. May I also list how funny it is that the majority of these people complaining are the Brit and mid tier US players and they are blaming their misfortune in their precious MBT's on the RU-251 instead of the real root of their problems and real issues that plague most British and even some American tanks, those issues being Solid Shot performance and the recent patch 1.67 HESH nerf. The RU-251 is not OP many of the people here and I have played it and have learned and are learning its unique playstyle. The RU-251, like many other vehicles, when in the right hands can be a very valued asset. But it isn't OP if it were it wouldn't need much of any training to play and win, to some degree the IS-6 is easier for the average player to pick up and do well with, given its great armour, good gun, awesome mobility (for a heavy), now I don't own it but by some peoples perception in this topic I apparently have more say in how it performs then those that actually own and play it.
  41. It takes zero extra effort to allow access to a title and camo... there is no excuse for not giving us that... If they expect me to go and purchase something that is only a short few dollars away from the price of a brand new game and they don't even have the decency to give us the opportunity to get the title and camo that the PC players got, that isn't going to happen and that isn't going to bode well for someone who has supported the games existance on console as long as I and many others have. I am not trying to be rude here but I am frustrated that we haven't gotten any answer or acknowledgement on this even after others and I have asked about it prior to its release.
  42. spahpanzer

    You knocked out the gun crew but still kept shooting the turret? I'm pretty sure that it's not the HEATFS that's broken.
  43. I can respect that, my biggest gripe with the Tiger II is that the gun nearly bounces on everything and that it misses 30% of shots entirely.
  44. The Tiger II 105 was entirely false aside from that one drawing in which a standard Tiger II would have mounted the 105mm gun but in game it also uses the HL234 which was designed with the Entwicklung series and the Panther II in mind. Either way though the Lowe does not have the statistics to match or fit in place of the current Tiger II 105.
  45. That is a massive exaggeration. You haven't either besides that "one time you were killed by it" yet you have never played it so you know very little of anything about it and so you are arguing a moot point. This is going no where and I'm done talking in circles, I bring up a point and apparently it doesn't mean a thing because you "say it is so" ya sure you know what fine whine all you want, whining does nothing but show that you are someone who can't adapt to new and changing things, you don't like watching your flank and you don't like Germany getting a new vehicle in general, and that comes from you guys never touching them and always fighting them. The same arguments are being made with the IS-6 and its ability to dominate a 6.0 game but you have no complaints there... I would like to say this has been fun but at this rate pulling teeth sounds like more fun then constantly arguing with the same 2-3 people about the same exact same argument of "its OP because it killed me" over and over have a great stay here guys, G'day and G'night.
  46. Just because a tank is good in higher BRs doesn't mean it should be there. I could take the T-44-122 into a 7.0 game and still do very well, that doesn't mean that it belongs at 7.0. I see people everyday bringing the Pz.II Hs into 8.0 games rushing/capping objects and actually getting kills with it does that mean it belongs there? Of course not. And you guys crying foul are in the minority a few that decide to whine in its own topic when I have asked many people in games now and all of them say that it is not OP and that it's actually very easy to kill and these are people playing on the opposing nation. You guys need to simmer down until the post release spam has worn away.
  47. APCR is a hole puncher and I can't find any stats saying it would out range anything else at its tier. The APDS also has 130mm of penetration at 100m with the L/43 and 140mm at 100m with the L/50. Anyways this is getting off topic, and I would rather not have any issues with this topic.
  48. To be honest I would welcome it the British have a tough time gaining traction with players due to the learning curve adding APDS or that APCR to those OQF 6 pounder guns would help make life a little more bearable earlier on. Plus it's not like there is an explosive charge with soviet or Japanese levels of explosive filler.
  49. Sorry yes that was a mistake but you did say that you had the caernaevon which does have the 84mm gun and thus my assertion still stands. You have little experience at this 5.7/6.7 BR range, you haven't played the RU-251 yet you are preaching about it like you know everything about it. I was just in a game playing against a US only team and essentially asked them what they thought of the RU-251 and quite a few of them said that it is not OP and these are people that see it on a frequent basis as this was a >6.7 game. I can post the chat log if you wanna see that badly. I agree it fits here at 6.7 and after the dust settles and people get bored of their new toy it won't be anywhere near as common as it is now.
  50. Did I mention anything about how the centurions armour performed? No I don't think I did? I was talking about its gun and only its gun if I recall correctly, you jumped to conclusions though.
  51. Jokes on you I have the STRV-81 which is a Centurion with ATGM launchers... but thats none of my business...
  52. Looking at players profiles in game, duh or you know just look up people on thunderskill... Oh hohohoho sorry two 5.7 (British) tanks that fought 6.7 RU-251s in an uptiered match on an account that may or may not even exist. Yes I have used it and I know how it preforms in comparison to other like vehicles at 6.7. And that is proof enough in this case, as why should kind of merit be granted to someone who had a few experiences with it in a 5.7 vehicle in an uptiered match... Wow and you are sitting there like it's some unstoppable forces yet even Cent. Mk.1 has enough penetration and spalling to knock it out, from literally any distance or angle. They can... And if you had actually used the RU-251 you would know its accuracy is pretty terrible at distance.
  53. If only any of the allied tanks could watch their flank, penetrate more then 30mm of armour and/or knock out out 3 of 4 clustered together crew members... oh wait.
  54. Yes and that is why nearly everyone using the RU-251 is being clubbed every match right now... That is why it's K/D ratio on the average player is below 1.0... That isn't even close to a proper metaphor. And may to point out that you have a single 5.7 tank and nothing above that so you are basing all of your opinions on this tank clubbing you and your team because of an experience you had with it in an upriered match? Wow well how can I argue with that kind of compelling proof...
  55. His comparison makes sense you are judging the vehicle on face value, if I see a car that races by and looks cool and I say that it is better then my own car, what makes that true? The fact that I saw it? I've never driven it so why does that make it true? My car may be better in other ways as well but I won't know for certain unless I drive both myself. Anyone can tell you, don't judge a book by its cover, you have not used it so why should your word be taken as gospel? Someone else sees me kill a tank with an E-100 or bounces a shot off of it and immediately calls it OP, does that make it OP? They don't know for certain and their word means little as they haven't played it for themself. You mean those videos where pro players get kills in a video, they do that in many different vehicles I will have you know and they only post their best gameplay... Both of them play all nations and report on the vehicles for what they are and how they play, don't try and skew what is going on here.
  56. You are going around in circles and you fail to see it, I'm not going to waste my time explaining something that has been summed up by many people including many well known YouTubers who frequently play this game and have an unbiased opinion towards any certain nation. It is not OP and the people who claim it to be so fail to see that it is matched and overmatched in every scenario aside from speed. You fail to see to reason, thus I am out.
  57. That is a hypocritical repition of what I previously stated, the RU-251 can be killed by machine gun fire in the exact same way. Two different tanks tank two different roles and they're not meant to be equal as they fill different roles. Not to mention the FV4005 actually does one shot things unlike the RU-251. Funny that, given you don't own the vehicle thus you don't have the experience to know what it can and can't actually bounce. It's thickest armour plate is 30mm thick so unless you are firing a pistol at it, it won't bounce nearly anything and when it does that is down to RNG which (if it even exists) effects all vehicles and isn't exclusive to this vehicle. Between the British and American 5.7 vehicles there are only 4 vehicles the heaviest armoured part is the Centurion Mk.1s mantlet and turret face with 152mm of armour other then that the UFP is about 76mm and less for the other 3 5.7 British/American tanks and I'll be damned if there isn't a tank at even 5.7 that couldn't pen a 76mm plate. What are you even trying to argue there is no point to be made here. Not to mention its HESH is only 100mm of pen that is the lowest penning HESH round in the game. Really? HESH is the round that loses no pen at angles not HEATFS... And it's HEATFS isn't unlike every other APDS/HEATFS round in the game it does lose its pen at angles quite a lot. Look at the Type-62 which is nearly identical play style wise to the RU-251 at the same BR and with nearly the same pen value on it HEATFS. I am not being any more rude then you guys are by saying that the vehicle is "Pay 2 Win" and "Intentionally OP as a cash grab".
  58. Extremely well put and finally someone who hasn't played it understands what it is for what it is. These arguments pop up after every new patch and addition, and the only reason people are crying is because they are use to being the ones flanking and rushing not the Germans, and they hate fighting anything that isn't the Tiger II which they have learned to deal with and exploit its weaknesses. They just dislike this vehicle changing the status quo.
  59. Okay here you go, look at every tank at 6.7... look at their ammo penetration values and then look for the heaviest armoured vehicles at 6.7... you done yet because *gasp* guess what nearly every tank at 6.7 has a HESH, HEATFS, APDS round that is capable of (get ready for this) penning nearly every tank at 6.7 frontally! Yes it is true look and see for yourself I don't speak a word of a lie and the three heaviest armoured tanks at 6.7 are the T-95, Tortoise, and the mantlet of the T34/T29 and even the so called "OP RU-251" has a hard time penning them if at all. It's HEATFS rarely gets one hit kills, and given it only had 4 crew members and no armour to speak of it can be taken out by a strafing P-40 Warhawk and its machine guns. Seriously get a grip, it is not OP and this little bandwagon argument happens after every update where no matter what side the player may sit they will always claim "OP" or "Pay2Win" which is completely rediculous and holds no merit what so ever.
  60. That is garbage look at Slickplays video or manymilesaway it is most definitely not OP and the only thing that is sparking this argument (which happens after every patch) is the fact Germany actually has a vehicle that can flank and the people playing allied nations aren't use to watching their flank or fighting anything that isn't a Tiger II for that matter. This petty whining is getting rediculous especially when those crying about it have not once even played a game in the vehicle for themselves.
  61. 35 km/h was the approximate top speed of the REDESIGNED Schwerer Lowe, the one with standard Tiger II 88mm gun not the 105mm gun you need to pick which prototype you are talking about because you are bouncing around quite a bit, plus this redesign is even more paper then the 105mm armed version with very little actual documentation surrounding it if anything. Right thank you for that, I pulled it from the Wikia on the T29 I guess it didn't specify that it was AB.
  62. Okay for one that chart shows the standard 10.5cm gun not the modified L/70 that was never constructed or tested like I said one unverifiable source is not proof especially when it is just an approximation. 23km/h (schwere) to 27km/h (leichte) the top speed of the T29 in game is 37 km/h.
  63. maus

    I agree if they were planning to drop the Maus to 7.3 they would never have taken away the post war round from the downtiered IS-2 mod.44 at 6.3 as it would face the Maus in an uptier and have no way to pen it. All *mouse guided* ATGM vehicles need to be at 9.0 that is my solution they club way to much on open terrain maps against the top tier heavies, sometimes on maps like Poland they snipe 1 minute into spawning from across the map.
  64. No you cant make any estimate as it is not one flat armour edge to use as reference, all of the mantlet armour is rounded and with the mantlet being a casted piece there is no one spot with exactly the same thickness (see picture). Plus no one can be 100% certain what the thickness is as it shrouds the gun who knows how much space there is on the inside between the gun mantlet and the barrel. Not to mention this image is a false artistic recreation of the REAL drawing which is this: Big difference as there was no indication of UFP thickness as well as the mantlet and gun not being exaggerated in size and hieght/width. This is not comparable to said 6.7 tanks let alone 7.3, not to mention this is another heavy that is unnecessary and it is a paper design which have only ever been added into the game when there was no other option and unfortunately this does not fit in that category.
  65. maus

    Best possible solution in my eyes is to leave the maus, bump ATGMs to 9.0 and fix the incorrect frontal turret armour on the Maus giving it the proper 240mm of Rolled Homogeneous Armour instead of Cast.
  66. Say and believe what you want, adding useless filler doesn't change fact. You said that they added it as a money grab that alludes to them being cunning, which they are not, they are not trying to extort or milk the fan base which you alluded to, just because you didn't outright say it doesn't mean you implied it. And yes saying as such would be and is insulting to the team.
  67. That is because that is what this has turned into, at this rate it won't be long until the mods come in and hand out the warnings.
  68. Wow you just really don't get the memo do you, If you keep talk like that up a mod is bound to hand out a warning. This is nothing new look at all tanks that share guns and by extension ammo at different BR's this isn't uncommon it is just different balance for each given BR.
  69. The amount of people taking to the forums to cry about a vehicle they don't even own the vehicle and haven't played it for themselves... Also quit this hostile attitude towards Gaijin, claiming thing like that it's a "cash grab" and that it's "pay to win" and in a way that says that you believe that it was intentional, is disrespectful and down right insulting to those that put the time into creating these vehicles, and I think sometimes you guys tend to forget that you are playing a game that is more or less free to play and that people put a lot of time and effort into building something great for the community. Shame on you.
  70. I approve of this and my thoughts are it should sit at around BR 7.3 - 7.7 just as the Leopards, given it has comparable stats, 72 km/h top speed which is the same as the Leopard A1A1, the turret traverse as you put is somewhere close to 24 degrees per second, far faster then the Leo. It does have less gun depression/elevation, but better side and rear armour (compared to the leo) to compensate, not that 50mm compared to 35 is much of a bonus. I would say best place in the tree would be right before the Raketenjagdpanzer 2 and after the Sturer Emil.
  71. Aircraft/Loadouts

    Agreed, Here is a pic of an F-86 with it's distinct smoke trail behined it due to the design of its engine, pilots use to say "If it smokes, it's one of ours". Although make sure to keep in mind that the German Canadair CL-13 sabre in game uses the Orenda engine which produced noticably less smoke, mainly when turning the throttle up high. The MiG-15 and by extension MiG-17 were designed with a more efficient engine and didn't produce much of any smoke when in flight. Although the current heat ray effect would look nice, without the engine fire of course The British Meteors didn't seem to show any kind of smoke trails, although the Hawker Hunter did have light smoke trails, hard to make out but they were there. Don't trust the Me-262 videos many of them have modified engines or are complete replica's with entirely different engines. Although the Me-163 spits a ton of smoke.
  72. Hello, A fellow player has recently brought to my attention an issue regarding the textures around the engine housing of the E-100. In the photos below you can see that somehow incorrect textures have been placed where the radiator fans and similar meshed areas should be on the engine deck. This has come into effect as of the most recent 1.67 update, and I am unsure as to whether this issue also extends to PC, as I have been unable to contact anyone with one, although I have confirmed today on my PS4 and with ZZerstoreRR. I know that this is a relatively minor texture issue, but would be nice to have fixed as soon as possible. As of current client version What I See What I Should See Thank you for your time.
  73. Aircraft/Loadouts

    This is a late MiG-17, likely the MiG-17F model as it had an afterburner. The model in game is the first basic MiG-17, no afterburner on the aircraft.
  74. What blueprints are you speaking of I've posted the only record that has statistical numbers and it clearly displays that the heaviest armoured point of the vehicle [Turret Front] is 100mm - 120mm of thickness. And again you say that you base it off of blueprints but there are none to speak of, if you can show me definitive proof that either of the initial Leichter or Schwerer designs had it I will gladly take back what I have said.
  75. If the RU-251 gets uptiered the Panther II should go back to 6.7 one or the other not both at 7.0 that is pure garbage.
  76. This is mirroring the echoes of the people crying that the Panther II is OP and we all know how that ended, Germany losing it's only good mobile tank at 6.7 which started the stomping of German teams. Now Gaijin has done something to rectify the loss and everyone is losing their head again, seriously guys stop with this anti German thing and actually look at the stats. The RU-251 is nearly identical to the Type 62 at 6.7 and yet I don't see anyone screaming foul there...
  77. The Type 62 and T92 are more equivalent to the RU-251 then those stated above and make up for their shortcomings in things they do better like having a smaller profile and having faster reload rates. The HESH on the RU-251 is next to useless with 100mm of penetration at 6.7, the HEATFS is great but not a OHK round, and in most cases takes multiple shots. And like you said it is very easy to kill ammo and fuel littered around cramped crew makes OHK easy to achieve. Best light tank in the game? The Sheridan has ATGM capability which is a huge bonus, the Object 906 gets a awesome gun and the ability to float on water, and the RU-251 has just speed and a fair BR.
  78. The Type 62 has 10 km/h less top speed, lower profile, faster reload, almost the same HEATFS pen value, better stock and other ammo types, more turret armour, unfortunately no neutral steering but minor technical issue, and slow turret traverse which is offset by the RU-251 having terrible accuracy. If the Type 62 fits at 6.7 so does the RU-251. If anything should change it should be the Jagdpz 4-5 getting a 6.7 BR, and placement before the Jagdtiger.
  79. The Type 62 has 20mm less pen with its HEATFS at 6.7, oh wait that's Russian so that doesn't matter...
  80. No I didn't but all of those people were proven to have unfounded reasoning as to why and the same applies here.
  81. I personally love the thing, but it is far from over powered, just because it moves fast and has a hole puncher gun does not make it OP. Sure in the right hands the thing can be bane of everyone in a session, but that isn't unlike the M18 at 5.0 great gun amazing speed, zero armour, no one complains about that, but oh thats right the M18 isn't German so no one would complain anyway...
  82. Granted there are no primary sources to cite from as this is a paper tank this will have to suffice: Turret Front 100mm - 120mm that is not any where near 275mm - 300mm, where did you get those number from, and why does that not sound accurate?
  83. There is no way it could, it is essentially the same size, has almost half the speed 27 km/h (Leichter) 23 km/h (Schwerer) compared to the Tiger II 105's 41 km/h, far less armour with a maximum [happens to be the turret] of 100mm (Leichter) 120mm (Schwerer) of Cast armour [with the -.5% cast modifier] compared to the Tiger II's 185mm of Rolled Homogenous Armour maximum, The Lowe has the same side armour but less frontal armour of 100-120mm compared to the Tiger II's 150mm. And it carried essentially the exact same gun as the KT 105 currently, why add a complete downgrade to replace the Tiger II 105? This thing couldn't even replace the Tiger II P at 6.3 BR.
  84. 1.67

    It's anything but OP, get over the fact that Germany is allowed to have a decent light tank. The Americans have thee T92 which is smaller and has 10km less top speed, good gun with a faster reload, the Russians have the Type 62 which is almost identical to the RU-251 in terms of gun performance and speed. No one is complaining that those nations have a good fast flanker tank. But, oh that's right none of them are German so no one complains about those. whining like this is what caused the Panther II to but unjustly moved to 7.0 where it is pretty much dead in purpose and usage, now Gaijin is trying to rectify that with the RU-251 and everyone losses their cool because German 6.7 is not allowed a decent fast tank? Prior to the RU-251 and after the Panther II increase German 6.7 was losing over 60% of all matches because the only vehicle being used were Tiger IIs.
  85. Aircraft/Loadouts

    It should look something along the same lines as this: This is from an outdated mod for War Thunder called Smokey Jet Exhaust and it really shouldn't take a person creating a mod to put a realistic jet exhaust effect in the game. Now that we have the exhaust flames for piston fighters it time to take the next step and fix something that is in need of it. The current jet flames are not only unrealistic but kind of cheap looking and the only flames seen would have been momentary sputters on the higher tier jets in game. The current effect could stay for the rocket powered fighters but not the jet powered.
  86. She is looking beautiful! Keep it up maybe that model will come in handy someday
  87. Hello everybody, Today I would like to make a topic, that really isn't new, but I can't seem to get it off of my mind so I thought I might as well put it out there. As we all know both the Tiger II mit 10.5cm and the Panther II are based on paper designs, note the term 'based' as neither of these two vehicles were ever proposed in the form we see them represented in game. They are made up by meshing different projects together that were never meant to, this has over time sparked a lot of controversy over their given spot in the game. The Tiger II 10.5cm being a somewhat flawed vehicle with it's (relatively) low penetrating ammo, bad accuracy and an awful reload time. Conversely the Panther II is a shining example of an early MBT-like tank at a much lower BR, which in itself has caused a lot of controversy as it seems in many circumstances to be over performing. Tiger II mit 10.5cm KwK L/68 While the King Tiger 105 certainly did exist on paper, the way it is presented in game has something that sets it apart from the typical Tiger II H, a large horsepower boost to nearly 900 h.p. similar to the diesel Tiger II H Sla.16, although this retains the same gasoline engine as seen on all other Tiger II's, so where did the extra horse power come from? Well after some searching it seems the only likely answer lies in a proposed modification to the current Maybach HL230 engine, the Maybach HL234 which had a fuel injection and guess what the projected horsepower out put was? 800 - 900 h.p. the same as what in in the King Tiger 105. Now why do I bring this up you ask? Well it's because the HL234 engine was only meant for the Entwicklung or E series of tanks and this blueprint concept (as seen above) was not associated with the E series nor was it intended to. Thus the vehicle as seen in game is an amalgamation of both the Krupp proposal sketch and the Entwicklung series Maybach HL234 engine which combined was never conceptualised nor designed. Now what I personally think should be done is to swap the King Tiger 105 as it exists currently with the E-75, the E-75 was to standardise production of the current Tiger II's by simplifying the materials and parts needed, whilst also upgrading the existing tanks to a higher standard. This included of course the Maybach HL234 engine, all around heavier hull armour and even reports a larger gun some stating the standard 88mm, 100mm and even the above 105mm. If the King Tiger 105 did in fact get replaced by the E-75 we would get a vehicle with essentially the same capabilities as the current King Tiger 105 but with a much better armour layout increasing it's survival rate at it's BR. My proposed BR? Somewhere between the current 7.0 and 7.3 (where no German vehicle currently sits). What this does for the game is somewhat fix the Tiger II 105 without really having to modify the current main gun, and at the same time add a vehicle that really was conceptualised and designed, of course it is still a paper vehicle but at least it isn't a fake one Panther II Panther II and E-50 Blueprint/Sketches - Courtesy of KorEEnium Now the Panther II is a bit of an 'odd duck' in the German research tree, the state we see it in game is knowingly fake and has been debated for a while in the suggestion to correct it to be more authentic to the original. Now of course the Panther II really did exist, it did so to try and achieve one goal, to add heavier protection to the hull as prior to its creation many Panthers were lost in combat due to side penetrating shots above the road wheels of course this was soon rectified with the addition of 4mm (or so) side skirting which was a cheaper alternative to creating an entirely new platform like the Panther II. Thus the Panther II production and testing was stopped indefinitely around 1944, this was done due to the realization of how superfluous the project was and decided to instead pursue alternate projects that were upgrades to existing platforms. This left only one hull completed, but this was an entire year before the creation of the Panther F and the Schmalturm turret which was first designed in November of 1943, and actually built in 1944 after the Panther II project's cessation. Those Schmalturm turrets were also intended for the Panther F, and that 88mm gun in the Schmalturm was a project again for the E series vehicles. The HL234 engine was planned for the Panther II later in it's life but none were built so it likely would have mounted a standard HL230, the HL234 was later made as a key feature on the E series of tanks. So once again we are in a situation where in this case 3 separate German projects were merged to create a Frankenstein tank as we see in game. Panther History Expanded - Courtesy of PantherAI So I again propose that to rectify this that the Panther II (in game) be replaced with the E-50, the E-50 similarly to the E-75 was supposed to be a standardized tank that was to borrow many parts and materials from the E-75 in it's production. While the chassis was the same basic design as the E-75 (modified Tiger II chassis) it was to be lighter in armour (compared to the E-75, armour similar to the Tiger II H) to grant it a lighter weight and a higher top speed similar to that of the current Panther II in game, due to the same Maybach HL234 engine seen in the E-75, albeit with likely less turning mobility when compared to the current Panther II. Although this tank would still retain the same 88mm gun that the Panther II has, along with fixing that pesky problem with the night vision equipment blocking the gun's depression by removing it altogether. My proposed BR would be 7.0 so as to leave room for the real Panther II, while also taking the spot of the current King Tiger 105. What will this fix? Well it will take away a tank that some say is over performing and put a vehicle in the game with armour similar to that of a normal Tiger II with the same gun, less mobility (better than Tiger II) and again a proper vehicle that isn't a fake made up vehicle, while also adding a vehicle that would have more then likely become a real tank had the war lasted a little longer, and in my honest opinion a paper tank has more merit to be in the game over a fake and/or amalgamated vehicle. Again I know this type of topic isn't new but I would really like people's opinion on the subject, thank you for your time.
  88. Hello everyone, Today I would like to suggest the possible addition of a premium and/or standard tank to the German research tree, the Early production Tiger H-1, specifically the Tiger H [100] variant from the Siege of Leningrad, as it was visually distinct from other later Tiger H-1's. This Tiger is also special in that it was the first completely intact Tiger I tank that was captured by the Soviet forces during Operation Spark in January 1945 outside of Leningrad, unfortunately the fate the Tiger is unknown at this time. The initial production Tiger I [100] of the 502nd Heavy Panzer Battalion, Leningrad Sector 1942 A render of the Initial Production Tiger H-1 [100] (note the distinct side mounted storage boxes, and the absence of any armoured side skirts) The reason I believe this vehicle would make a nice addition is the fact the tank not only looks different visually but also physically from the placement of the turret's storage boxes, one on either side rather than a single one located at the rear. Also there is an absence of any armoured skirting, two forward facing headlamps and the colour of the tank adopting the early German factory grey scheme as opposed to the later yellowed brown, even the placement of the tools located on the vehicle are different from the later models of Tiger. This tiger also utilized the Maybach HL 210 engine which was less powerful than the HL 230 in the later Tiger H1 and Tiger E currently in the game. This reduced the on road and off road traverse speed, along with likely reducing the turret traverse rate as well. This is why I believe the BR for this vehicle should be at 5.3 to try and fill out a little more of the German 5.0-5.3 BR range which is also a little lacking. This is why I think they could also add a standard Early Production Tiger I into the main research tree and add Tiger I [100] as a purchasable premium, or in a separate bundle. The non premium Early Tiger I could Possibly be the variant that used a Pz.III storage box mounted to the rear of the turret, fun fact some early production Tigers were equipped with the first 100 Krupp turrets produced, these had a distinct cut out at the bottom right corner of the turret mantlet. This was done to allow clearance for raised sections at the back of the Porsche chassis as 100 turrets were produced before a chassis was selected. This is extremely hard to notice but is noticeably present on a famous Tiger notable for being an early production Tiger that was modified to the E standard, Tiger 131. And to the best of my ability after looking at line drawing (as per WobblyBat's post below), I can say that I firmly believe Tiger [100] was also one of these to mount one of the first 100 Krupp turrets on the Henschel chassis. Blueprint of Tiger [100] Showing the Porsche Turret - Courtesy of WobblyBat Example of the Porsche Turret on a Henschel Chassis Early Production Tiger I example (Not Tiger 100) The specific vehicle I am referring to is the one with the production number 100 identified on the side mounted turret storage boxes, this tank was used as a command tank among the 502nd Heavy Panzer Battalion, the battalion emblem of which is present in the first image above (an emblem that presently exists in the game). During Operation Spark on January 14 1943, Tiger 100 was the became the first Tiger tank to be captured by the Soviet forces, surprisingly completely intact and undamaged, this tank was swiftly moved for evaluation at the Kubinka Experimental Armour Facility, where it was extensively examined and tested, and can be seen in various images (within the spoilers below), and is very well documented as it was the first tank of its type that the Soviets would subject to examination and testing which would help them better counter the new infamous German heavy tanks on the battlefield. I think the addition of this tank would be not only a fun novelty, as there were so few of the Tiger H-1's that were serviced in this configuration, but also a good addition to the middle tier of the German research tree. This early variant of the Tiger H-1 fought primarily on the Eastern Front during it's initial servicing in 1942, notably present in the Siege of Leningrad. These early Tigers were fielded as per Adolf's impatient orders, before the design could be further refined, as seen with the later Tiger variants. As such, Inevitable faults in the initial design allowed the Soviets to capture a number of vehicles over the entirety of the war, the first and best documented being Tiger 100. This gave the soviets an advantage much earlier in the war, to study the aspects of the vehicle and provide useful information, which would prove to be vital in the development of the later T-34 variants, the IS tank family, and many other Soviet tank designs. Soviet Inspection Photo Combat Photo Captured Photo Rear Photos And well you can never have enough Tigers am I right? For some reason I prefer the layout of this model and I don't know why. Anyway tell me what you think below, and if you can link any relevant info about the tank that would be great. Cheers! TJ Reference Material